National
DOMA repeal supporters seek Senate hearings
But Congress unlikely to overturn law anytime soon

Supporters of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act are calling on the Senate to hold hearings on the impact the denial of the federal benefits and responsibilities of marriage is having on married same-sex couples throughout the United States.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of the New York-based Freedom to Marry, said hearings before the Senate could help raise the level of discussion on marriage on Capitol Hill.
“One of Freedom to Marry’s top goals is to take the marriage conversation in Washington, D.C., to a higher level — putting real faces, presenting the real evidence and dispelling the bogus arguments — to give elected officials and other policy makers a better understanding of why marriage matters,” Wolfson said. “Holding hearings is certainly one important opportunity for us to help continue the momentum in support of overturning DOMA and ending marriage discrimination.”
A Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also emphasized the importance of hearings as legislative repeal remains unlikely during the 112th Congress.
“One of the key steps that senators can take to build momentum is to have a hearing, or hearings, on the topic,” the aide said. “I think a thorough and perhaps even a dramatic hearing could galvanize opinion in the Senate and hopefully even serve as a galvanizing moment more broadly in the public.”
As a result of DOMA, which was passed by Congress in 1996, married same-sex couples cannot participate in federal programs. For instance, they can’t file joint federal income taxes, receive spousal benefits under Social Security or obtain exemptions of the estate tax law upon the death of one of the spouses.
Last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced legislation in the Senate known as the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the anti-gay statute. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) has introduced companion legislation in the House. Neither piece of legislation has any Republican co-sponsors.
Favorable hearings on DOMA repeal are unlikely in the House with Republicans in control of the chamber. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has spoken out in support of maintaining the anti-gay statute.
Consequently, the decision on whether to hold hearings rests with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Known as an LGBT advocate, Leahy is among the co-sponsors of the DOMA repeal legislation.
A Judiciary Committee spokesperson said she couldn’t provide a comment on whether Leahy intends to hold hearings during the 112th Congress because he’s currently serving as part of a congressional delegation overseas.
Even with support growing in the Senate, the repeal legislation faces tremendous odds against reaching President Obama’s desk during the 112th Congress with Republicans in control of the House. Even with Democrats in control of the upper chamber, reaching the 60-vote threshold for passage of the Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate would be challenging.
Maggie Gallagher, chair of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, told the Washington Blade via e-mail that she would appreciate the opportunity to speak at a congressional hearing on marriage, but questioned why they would need to take place if DOMA repeal legislation has no chance of passage.
“I certainly would welcome a chance to make the case for DOMA again, personally, however I think it would be rather silly for the Senate to waste its time on hearings on a bill that has exactly zero chance of passage,” she said.
But Richard Socarides, president of Equality Matters, said hearings could be part of the plan that would bolster support for passage of the legislation in the Senate.
“If we’re able to get Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, I think the right thing to do would be obvious for a lot of senators,” Socarides said. “It’s possible at some point before the end of this Congress, we could have a majority of senators who understand the importance of repealing this law. … It’s very important to make progress and hearings could be an important part of that.”
Despite the challenges in passing DOMA, a change in administration policy and growing public support for same-sex marriage is changing the landscape for the statute’s repeal.
Last month, President Obama announced he believes DOMA is unconstitutional and that the U.S. Justice Department would no longer defend DOMA in court against litigation. House Speaker John Boehner has directed the House general counsel to take up defense of the statute in court.
Additionally, a Washington Post-ABC News poll published last week found 53 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage and significant gains in support for same-sex marriage in religious communities. The poll indicates a 23-point in support increase among white Catholics, a 16-point increase among nonevangelical white Protestants, and an 11-point increase among evangelicals.
The Senate Democratic aide said both these developments will have a “big impact” on generating support for the eventual overturning of DOMA. Additionally, the aide said the success last year of passing legislation allowing for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal created a climate that could allow for DOMA repeal.
“We saw these unexpected Republicans like Richard Burr and John Ensign voting for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal and I think that part of the message that I’m hearing from people who are pushing DOMA repeal along is that if a gay person is good enough to fight and die for their country now openly, then why should they also have the right to marry?” the aide said. “I think that’s a powerful sort of one-two punch.”
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment

More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’

A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
-
The Vatican3 days ago
American cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features3 days ago
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court5 days ago
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved